AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Yeah because introducing more competition = bankruptcy. You and the establishment aren't fooling anyone. anymore. But keep fighting the fight. lol
Hillary Clinton: Being a Capitalist Hurt Me in Primary Because Many Democrats Are Socialists
- Thread starter ceezy
- Start date
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Dude posted a smiley face in rebuttal to me but I diverted the argument.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
She woulda been a terrible president and she’s a lying c*nt bytch
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
The Hill
44 mins ·
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson defended his plan to raise rent for recipients of low-income housing subsidies, saying his proposal is "our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty."
Carson: Raising rent for people on housing assistance gives the poor 'a way out of poverty'
Carson's plan would triple rent for some recipients of low-income housing…
THEHILL.COM
Poll finds 4M lost health insurance in last two years
It was worth it though? This is only this week and it doesn't skim the surface of the damage that has been done to the environment, judiciary, and other facets of life.
@jayshiggs
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Why are you mentioning me I voted for Hillary. And she still lost.
The Hill
44 mins ·
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson defended his plan to raise rent for recipients of low-income housing subsidies, saying his proposal is "our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty."
Carson: Raising rent for people on housing assistance gives the poor 'a way out of poverty'
Carson's plan would triple rent for some recipients of low-income housing…
THEHILL.COM
Poll finds 4M lost health insurance in last two years
It was worth it though? This is only this week and it doesn't skim the surface of the damage that has been done to the environment, judiciary, and other facets of life.
@jayshiggs
Like I said losing to Trump is some real loser shyt. Dems need to get introspective why and get a new strategy instead of casting blame elsewhere. I got a link for you to:
Hillary Clinton: Being a Capitalist ‘Probably’ Hurt Me in Primary Because Many Democrats Are Socialists
"The Republican National Committee research team quickly seized upon the remarks, clipping it and posting it to their social-media channels."
Ironically, the Midwest told America to die faster.
I'm sorry for getting repetitive in this thread, but what you're doing here is exactly the misunderstanding that I think is weakening the left, and allowing the right to dictate the political conversation even though they are in the minority. Put simply: American politics might be posed as bi-polar (bootstraps vs handout mentality), but it isn't. At the very least it's tri-polar.
What do I mean...
If we can agree that it's important to operate with a common understanding of terms, the modern state in the Westphalian/European model (post-1648) is Liberal (re: limited government via constitutionalism and separation of powers, freedom of thought, expression, religion, and markets). Free markets (i.e., Economic Liberalism) is ingrained in Liberal ideology.
What we understand as Conservative vs. Progressive comes from a Liberal and, most importantly, industrialized world. By the mid 1800's the British started taking stock of their Liberal industrialized society and some began identifying flaws with the system and trying to fix them. Those that resisted this change became Conservatives (re: proponents of pure Economic Liberalism), those that embraced it became Progressives (or Utilitarians). John Stuart Mill is probably the most recognizable of the early Progressives, and his general argument was that markets should be free from government restriction EXCEPT when the forces of the market violate a citizens constitutional rights. This is key.
Around the same time in France (who had a much less representative society), rather than trust their government to bring reform the oppressed working class condemned free market capitalism completely. They condemned individualism, free markets, and limited government. This became Socialism.
The first Socialists thought that society should be governed by a scientific algorithm, of sorts, that would ignore human selfishness and corruption. This failed, and Marxists called it "Utopian". Some Socialists (mostly in Germany) attempted to achieve Socialism through Democracy, but quickly changed their tune (especially on markets specifically because of the argument I'm making). Around the same time Marx and Ingles clarified that a violent revolution was the only way to do away with the oppressors of pre-Socialist society. Where Marx fails, though, is in prescribing a government type to make Socialism work. How do you have have a purely egalitarian society when, ultimately, you need people of higher status to organize it? Well, Lenin (and nearly everyone that followed with the exception of Red Vienna) decided that the only way was through a "vanguard of the proletariat" (re: dictatorship).
Point is, we end up with three poles in politics: Conservative Liberalism, Progressive Liberalism, and Socialism. The reality is that if we did want to combine two of the groups it would be Conservative Liberals and Progressive Liberals....because they're all Liberals.
Really, even current American conservatives are Progressive Liberals - its more an ongoing debate of "how progressive" or, more precisely, what exactly are constitutional rights and are they in fact being violated by market forces?. As an example, I think you would have a hard time finding even the most hard core Alt-Right idiot to argue with the notion that the government should make laws preventing 6 year olds from working in coal mines (even if the free market posits that their little bodies and low agency to demand higher wages makes sense for the bottom line). In that way, they are Progressive. The Classic (truly Conservative) Liberal would argue that, even though that is bad for the life of that 6 year old, the success of that coal mine brings a benefit to society that outweighs that negative - and in that way the Free Market prevails. Again, I can't see many Republicans making that argument.
What ends up happening in elections then (not only in America now, but regularly through out the history of the state in the Westphalian Model), is that the left divides itself, and the right wins. Of course you can point to times when the Left wins, but usually its the result of extenuating circumstances or national crisis.
Post-Civil War America has seen 20 Republican Presidents, and 10 Democrats. Republicans have had 4 consecutive administrations once, three consecutive administrations twice, and two consecutive administrations twice. Democrats have only had two consecutive administrations twice, and both time were the result of the the first dying while in office during a war. I mean, you don't have to look much further than G.W. Bush winning a second term, or Trump winning anything in politics ever.
This pattern will quite literally never end in America unless Americans on the left come to terms with the fact that Capitalism is inherent in the Constitution in its guarantee of "Liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness". On the left there are certainly Socialists in America, but mostly it's Progressives who don't understand Socialism but think it makes them even more "woke". What results is they misguidedly condemn Progressives as collaborators with the "oppressor", divide the left, and allow the right to run whatever moron they want to win elections.
And, fine, you might point to Hillary winning the popular vote to disprove what I'm saying, but you'll also have to disprove the history of American Presidents that I pointed to earlier, Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle, the Nazi rise to power in Germany, Mussolini's rise to power in Italy, Bismark's rise to power in the 1860's, the election of Napoleon III in France, etc., etc., etc. ....all in the face of a majority on the left.
Last edited:
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
I wonder why?Ironically, the Midwest told America to die faster.
Because they refuse to accept reality.I wonder why?
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Blame, marganalize, talk down to the people you need to win elections brehs. I heard they love it and it really makes them want to hear you out and join your cause.Because they refuse to accept reality.
Meanwhile. . .
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-michigan-flint-safe-residents-corroded.html
State warned Flint of 'significant' problems two weeks before cutting off bottled water
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/05/03/what-do-most-common-jobs-cincinnati-pay/567900002/
If you voted for Trump you're an idiot.
Nothing to debate there.
I'm not running for office nor am I volunteering in the Midwest.
My accurate critique has no consequences to whatever a candidate does.
Be overly sensitive because you're from the Midwest.
Dumb cacs voted FOR Trump who do them more harm than a candidate they disliked.
hold you own nuts.
@jayshiggs all the places you listed have republican governs. 
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
But your attitude is similar to the Democratic party. Dismissed as coincidence?If you voted for Trump you're an idiot.
Nothing to debate there.
I'm not running for office nor am I volunteering in the Midwest.
My accurate critique has no consequences to whatever a candidate does.
Be overly sensitive because you're from the Midwest.
Dumb cacs voted FOR Trump who do them more harm than a candidate they disliked.
What if you are in direct competition to Trump and lost? Are you an idiot then?
I'm not from the midwest man, but I don't have contempt for them either.
Yeah I know, Democrats can't win anywhere but still want to stick to the script.@jayshiggs all the places you listed have republican governs.
I have friends with PhDs researching these drugs and working at these firms.
Do you want them to lose their jobs to other countries who dont even invest in doing the research but sell our own drugs back to us?